Is this Labour Party idea worth stealing?


The Labour Party wants to build 100,000 affordable homes across the country.

KiwiBuild: 100,000 affordable houses over 10 years, of which half will be in Auckland where they will cost up to $600,000 for a standalone home. The Affordable Housing Authority will deliver it. It will require a $2 billion start-up which will be recouped from house sales and returned to the Crown once the houses are built.
Did Whaleoil readers think that this was a policy idea worth stealing? Read on and find out what The Great Whaleoil Housing Survey revealed.

?Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.39.52 AM Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.40.02 AM Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.40.15 AM

Word analysis of the written responses to the question revealed the opinion that this Labour Party policy was impossible and that they are dreaming.
Written responses unedited:

govt should ensure land is available & materials are well priced so anyone can build affordable homes
There are so many different figures being bandied about- we supposedly have 40,000 homeless now – why 10,000 rather than say we will keep building homes until the problem is “solved”. The policy assumes homeless will be able to afford a $600,000 house once they get one – the policy relies on sales to recoup the startup costs?

100,000 houses over 10 years good policy. Keep the affordable housing authority out of the process.

Weasel words, Easy to say in opposition – impossible to implement when in government.

Not a good idea. It will never cost $2BN for a start. They are dreaming. It will cost far more than that. The big thing that makes houses so expensive to build is the infrastructure development costs. If the government should subsidise anything may be that is where they should be focusing putting in investment along with making the ACC free up greenspace on the outer city limits and streamlining the consent process.

Ban foreign ownership and cease immigration.

No houses are to be built in Auckland. Lower incomes will move out, no workers for factories, it will be a mess but it will sort itself out. House prices in Auckland will reduce.

It is a ridiculous proposal. “Affordable” homes are Already available in most parts of NZ. Can’t buy in AKL? go elsewhere.

Where is the money and the skilled workers to do the this work ?

The homeless could not afford $600,000 for goodness sake. $200,000 would be more than most could afford. keep out of the housing market for goodness sake

Its roughly the same as what National are working on at present. $600,000 is not affordable for low income earners.

Allows government to apply leverage to market, lean on councils etc. also puts them on the hook for building regs compliance.

If developers will not build affordable homes then as a last resort Government should step up
If it was even remotely possible then maybe. A change in govt will result in a change in housing demand through poor economic practices anyway.

No, history has proven creation of ghettos and housing projects is not smart.

I expect the market to start delivering at least this volume once it is geared up
I think the money they quote if insufficient and the time frame impossible to achieve. To recoup the 2billion from first home buyers will take 30 or 40 yrs.

No they should reform RMA, make it easier to build, perhaps review buildjng costs in NZ and why they are so high. Force Auckland council to get rid of urban boundary. Force council to get consents through quicker

No the Govt will make a mess and have lots of people in wellington shuffling paper producing nothing of value

A few years down the track, their value will have increased above the rate of inflation, the owners will sell at the MARKET value, and meaning the Low Cost housing is GONE. Better to encourage industry and business to the regions and shift Demand, let the market work.

It is not logistically possible, unless you want inexperienced or unqualified tradies knocking up dodgy housing with a ‘she’ll be right’ approach, the consequences of such could be further leaky building issues, code non-compliance and inadequate materials. 10,000 homes per year is 192 homes COMPLETED per week and is therefor a fantasy, also taking into account it might take 3 months minimum under ideal conditions to build a house, by the time the first batches of housing are completed there will be 114-117 months remaining to complete the 10,000, this ups the annual rate of completed homes to a target of 85 houses per month from 83. The cost of labour, the availability of skilled workers, and the current labour labour laws would all have a bearing on the outcome and eventual failure of the project.

No – they should improve infrastructure to and from Auckland and encourage land intensive businesses to relocate outside Auckland and reward them with tax breaks to do so – these mixed industrial/residential areas in inner Auckland are instance – look at the wasted space on Rosedale Road and Marua road respectively. This will freeup land in Auckland – create jobs outside Auckland

We have more than enough poor quality homes. Building small houses on small sections just creates a further problem down the line. The Government should make sure land is available for building, show some guts and tackle New Zealand’s grossly overpriced building material and compliance costs and then let the market decide what to build. There then may be a benefit to some tax incentives to encourage the upgrading of existing homes.

There is an unfortunate group of people who think nobody should EVER be homeless regardless of their choices. This introduces a rather nasty shade of moral hazard where people know they can be total arseholes and yet still be housed and fed.

NO, because the correct response is to correct the regulatory and policy setting that are causing the property to be unaffordable first.

More big government, with a guarantee that the math is faulty and $2b is just the beginning. NO.

If the state provides, would these be to a good standard or future slums just to keep prices down. There are still a lot of houses in Auckland and for that matter right around NZ for less than 600,000, they just may not be exactly where some people would like them. We all have to start somewhere.

They are dreaming. A section in Rodney district for example is $250k, Services $50k leaving $300k @$2000/sqm to build that’s 100’000 “shoe boxes” dotted around Auckland’s outer areas.

Crazy talk, there is no feasible way to recycle $2Bn every 4.8 months for each 4,000 homes over 10 years. The building industry will smell profit like a fat kid on smarties!

You know I can understand the appeal to those wanting to buy a first home in Auckland, but Labour are deluded if they think they can fund this without having to spend more than 2 billion…wait for the cost blow-out. And 600k for house in Auckland…why not build up places like Taumarunui where you could build a better house for less than 200k. If Labour do get in power…shudder…and do implement this policy ,then focus on the provinces were prices are cheaper and actually affordable…after all they have been bleating on about the provinces for longer then their usual ’cause of the week ‘ .tactic

There is no way this will only cost $2 billion and houses made available for under/up to $600,000 in Auckland over 10 years. People need to move where housing is more affordable.

Hamstrung by existing land constraints. Not enough detail provided.

It’s a pipe dream. There is neither the land or resources available to up production to this level. Try ordering a concrete slab in Auckland at the moment.

Refer Darryl Kerrigan!!

No they are spending my money on people who who are dependent on welfare because they are uneducated and are unable to find work.

The devil is in the detail, and we’ve been given too little of that to make a sound judgement
It is literally impossible and to attempt would actually cause a lot of damage to the development industry

The policy is not do able! Pie in the sky as usual from Labour who know they will never have to front on these policies they throw around.

They should build more houses and let the market decide their price.

its an interesting idea devoid of substance, there isn’t the man power to build the houses in an affordable way and importing more people to do so will just make the situation worse

It seems like it won’t address the real issues of supply vs demand. Who and how will it create 100,000 houses? The entire endevor would be fraught with issues ending in 20,000 shitty little houses and a $2billion + blowout down the drain… and still a housing supply issue at the end! Generic politician: vote for me and free cocaine & hugs for every one.

The figures don’t stack up
Labour is struggling to exist how do they intend to organise this.

it will cost more, and deliver less, so no.

The market would build them if there was a need and if sufficient land was available along with streamlining RMA


Because it is unrealistic and there are NOT that many homeless. We cannot afford to house all of NZ, especially when tennants have been evicted for misuse of the previous property or unpaid rent. By building 100,000 more state houses we are nurturing a welfare dependent society and this is very bad in any country as the majority of people in state housing don’t work anyway and never will.

Affordable, at $600,000?

The issue is whether it is possible

Tell them they are dreaming. No it is not a good policy. Government housing never is the answer.
Having the government involved is a guarantee that it will go over budget and minimal money will be returned to the crown

Its impossible 100k houses in 10 years, is 27 houses a day every day for that 10 years. I doubt there enough tradespeople in the country, let alone the logistics required to maintain that output.

If it was possible National would have done it already. They have been up against the Auckland council’s non-cooperation for the last 3 years, not to mention the lack of builders.

Govt will stuff it up

Its a great idea if you want to turn Auckland into a Ghetto.

It’s a pipe dream and they can promise whatever they like. Not sufficient resources in NZ to build that number in the next 10 years.